PIFR vs CIR ? Any practical advice ?

[FlugWeasel]

I have been looking at adding an Instrument rating to my PPL and wouldnt mind some advice about which path to go down ie: PIFR vs CIR.

A friend who is now doing a CIR has suggested avoiding the PIFR path as he reckons the effort required to get all the FPAs is better spent focusing on the CIR. From a quick flip through the CIR and PIFR books the theory isnt significantly more complicated.

I also like the idea of training the the same IF standard as a CPL even if I never intend to be paid for my flying.

At this stage I am not necessarily interested in MECIR. Juggling one engine and instruments was complicated enough when I did the "taste of instrument" flying section of my licence.

Does anyone have any practical advice ? Do you find it hard to keep the CIR current ?

[Led Zep]

There was a great article in Australian Flying magazine just recently on this very subject. If I can find it, you can always ring 'em up with the month and order a back issue.
I think the main advantage the PIFR has over the CIR is that you don't need to keep current and I don't think renewals are an issue?
CIR is fairly straight forward to keep current, provided you have the required navaids within reasonable flying distance. To bad there aren't as many ILS/LLZs as there are NDBs in the top end though!

[The Bunglerat]

Whilst you don't have to hold a CPL or ATPL to hold a CIR, whether you ultimately decide to go for the full Rating or just the PIFR, you need to approach it as a professional qualification. By this, I mean no Mickey-Mouse or cowboy-style "she'll-be-right" attitudes. I've said this on another thread, but you'd be amazed just how undisciplined and lazy it's possible for a VFR/PPL driver to be - and still manage to get away with it. In contrast, when you're in the soup with the expectation of having to fly an approach all the way to minimums before getting visual (if at all), you either get it right - or end up a statistic. There simply is no margin for error.

I'm not saying that you're a hack (in all fairness I don't know you, so I'm not judging), but I've met quite a few drivers over the years (recreational and professional alike) who have absolutely no business being at the controls of an aeroplane for IFR operations. The important distinction however, is that it's not the licence which determines how professional you are - it's your attitude.

Whichever one you go for, as long as you treat the Rating with the highest level of respect and don't push your luck too far, you'll enjoy some great flying.

[FlugWeasel]

Magazine Article

Originally Posted by Led Zep

There was a great article in Australian Flying magazine just recently on this very subject. If I can find it, you can always ring 'em up with the month and order a back issue.
I think the main advantage the PIFR has over the CIR is that you don't need to keep current and I don't think renewals are an issue?
CIR is fairly straight forward to keep current, provided you have the required navaids within reasonable flying distance. To bad there aren't as many ILS/LLZs as there are NDBs in the top end though!

Thanks for the info. I tracked down the article.
It is in Nov/Dec 2005 Australian Flying if anyone else is looking for it.

Everything I wanted to know is explained quite clearly in the article. I guess what I am looking for is some *practical* experience from PPL pilots maintaining recency. The most difficult aspect logistically looks to be conducting an ILS approach every 35 days.

I fully agree with the recency requirements. Everything other than the ILS component seems manageable as it is in a 90 day/180 day/365 day cycle. One other concern I have with the PIFR is that other than self enforced criteria, there isnt the same stress on the "use it or lose it" principle of the CIR.

What is interesting is Curtis Aviation at Camden are quoted as saying that their Ops Manual requires PIFR to maintain the same recencyas CIR.

[FlugWeasel]

Originally Posted by The Bunglerat

Whilst you don't have to hold a CPL or ATPL to hold a CIR, whether you ultimately decide to go for the full Rating or just the PIFR, you need to approach it as a professional qualification. By this, I mean no Mickey-Mouse or cowboy-style "she'll-be-right" attitudes. I've said this on another thread, but you'd be amazed just how undisciplined and lazy it's possible for a VFR/PPL driver to be - and still manage to get away with it. In contrast, when you're in the soup with the expectation of having to fly an approach all the way to minimums before getting visual (if at all), you either get it right - or end up a statistic. There simply is no margin for error.
I'm not saying that you're a hack (in all fairness I don't know you, so I'm not judging), but I've met quite a few drivers over the years (recreational and professional alike) who have absolutely no business being at the controls of an aeroplane for IFR operations. The important distinction however, is that it's not the licence which determines how professional you are - it's your attitude.

Fully agree with those sentiments.

The PPL is a PRIVATE licence not a "amateur pilots licence". Likewise, it is a COMMERCIAL licence not a "professional pilots licence". The piece of paper doesnt say anything about how professional you are when you fly.

That was always a key point stressed time and again when I was training. The expectation was always that the same standards were expected of every pilot. Sometimes it felt a little tough to be held to a higher standard but I think it breeds better pilots.

There should be no distinction in terms of professionalism and airmanship between PPL and CPL or even ATPL for that matter.

Slightly off topic, but highly relevant to a discussion about PPL/CIR ....

[Ascend Charlie]

The main reason I operate with a PIFR and not MECIR is this: our aircraft is unique in Australia, and it is very difficult and expensive organising a test from one of the two people in the country qualified to test me, one in Darwin and one in Melbourne. Going through the CASA-induced debacle every 2 years is bad enough without doing it every year.

Why does CASA ignore the screaming need for more ATOs?

The PIFR allows me to do everything that the MECIR does, for our purposes.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Originally Posted by FlugWeasel

The most difficult aspect logistically looks to be conducting an ILS approach every 35 days.

With both CIR and PIFR there is no need to get involved with ILS. I would suggest that with the lack of ILS equipped airports anyway and the fact that if you need IFR minima to fly that day then maybe a PPL doesn't really need to be flying.

Extending the same logic, you can achieve everything you need with NDB, VOR (maybe not) and DME/GPS NPAs for which keeping currency to CIR standard is not so difficult - especially if you have access to a simulator in which you can knock off all three pretty easily in 40 minutes for about $30.

Finally, PIFR only requires 20 hours IF time to issue while CIR requires 40. If you get your enroute PIFR in one test and the instrument departure/holding/NDB/VOR & DME/GPS NPAs in another then you can go out and pick up the CIR hours at your own pace and importantly, without an instructor but in real IF and real conditions (using your brains and not blasting off into complete crud on your first flight) which should help if you ever decide to upgrade to CIR.

Hope this helps,

UTR.

[QSK?]

FlugWeasel:

I did the ME PIFR, plus all the FPAs, when the scheme was first introduced a couple of years ago. The reason why I went down this path was because I did not have the required cross-country PIC time to qualify for the CIR at the time and I needed to have an instrument rating asap to allow me to fly with confidence into/out of where I live. Therefore, I am quite thankful that the PIFR path existed otherwise I would've had to wait some time before gaining some IFR proficiency under the CIR path.

Some personal observations based on my experience that may help you in your decision re PIFR vs CIR:

1. Do the CASA IREX exam, not the "mickey mouse" instrument rating exams that are sometimes set by the PIFR training organisations. Firstly, by doing the IREX your theoretical knowledge of instrument flying will be significantly improved and, secondly, you can change to the CIR later on without having to do another exam.

2. There is no functional difference between a full CIR and a PIFR with all the FPAs attached. The training syllabus is the same, the testing standards are the same and the priviledges, rules and procedures are the same. It should be noted that the PIFR is not recognised, or accepted, by other internation regulatory agencies for instrument flying overseas (including NZ) whereas the CIR is.

3. Despite (2) the recency requirements for a PIFR ARE NOT the same as a CIR and this is probably the major area of objection from the established CIR training organisations. My personal point of view is, if you wish to enjoy the same rights and priviledges as the CIR pilot, then you owe it to the CIR pilots, your passengers as well as yourself to maintain the required level of IFR competency and proficiency so that you don't endanger anyone else's life. Therfore, in the absence of a clear-cut recency standard, this requires the PIFR pilot to demonstrate a higher level of personal responsibility, professionalism and self-assessment, as well as the guts to rule himself out of an IFR flight if he feels he is not up to the required (short term) competency standard. Make sure you go out and buy a proper PC-based IFR proficiency program such as "On Top" or "Elite" etc and practice on it regularly at home to maintain scan proficiency and to keep IFR procedures and tolerances fresh in your mind.

4. If you hold a PIFR rating without any FPAs (not recommended), then you should plan for an alternate and CONTINUALLY MONITOR the status of that alternate while enroute to your primary destination. Don't be caught out at the last minute by not being able to get down below the LSALT and then finding you don't have any alternate, or insufficient fuel to get to that alternate or, worse still, your alternate is also socked in. My recommendation; at least get one FPA attached to your PIFR (preferably a GPS NPA or NDB to give you the most number of approach options).

5. It may be more cost effective to do the full CIR, or full PIFR, in one go rather than adding FPAs on a staged interval basis.
Hope this helps.

[onthedials]

QSK is spot-on. All that advice is good.

I fly IFR, privately, almost every week, but stick to the CIR currency to the maximum possible extent and keep all the endorsements current by practice.

I think the CIR process will make you a better pilot, IFR or VFR. If nothing else, you will be confident that those you are dealing with (ATC and other pilots) met the same standard. When the chips are down, that's worth a lot. There are certain disciplines learnt from flying approaches and maintaining altitudes that will help in all manner of flying situations.

There is a great danger in any type of private IFR (be it under CIR or PIFR) that the lack of organisational and systemic checks and balances allows completely insane situations to develop. An airline pilot has a ground organisation to provide support for diversions, equipment failures or just to discuss the situation with the other pilot. As a private IFR pilot (unless you are VERY lucky) you have no such cover. That means you must be diligent in decision-making and very honest about your own standards and those of your aeroplane. The 'personal standards' concept has a lot of merit for private IFR.

For me (and I do not suggest that it should restrict others) I have long applied the alternate minima as the go/no-go criteria for single-pilot flights in a single-engined aeroplane. OK, there have been some days when I cancelled and could have gone, but, well...

Can I suggest two major factors which you absolutely must consider?

First, your single engined aeroplane (unless it's the fantastic new G36 Bonanza) probably has only one alternator. An instrument approach on battery power is no fun. Unless you are very sharp and very confident about your alternator (just how confident can you be about such a device?) then there must be VFR conditions within available fuel range at all times if you are to stay safe. Even that criteria will depend on your ability to fly enroute some distance without radio, lights, pitot heat, transponder, navaids and (probably) the TC. Or worse.

Second, much of the weather when it happens in Australia is convective. This is different to Europe and America. You may read in the US Flying magazine of Cessnas/Pipers/Cirruses flying to 300 foot 1/2 mile minima and wonder why we never seem to do that here (well, north of Melbourne!)... Often enough they are doing it through stratus in smooth conditions with tops of 2,000 feet. Here, in the minority of the time when there is any weather about, it's easy enough to enter the cloud at 9,000+ and see nothing above 1,000. That means, even if ATC will let you drift happily down at 500fpm, perhaps 15 minutes of bouncy CU showers or worse, a STAR and maybe an approach to fly. Our lack of ATC means that many approaches start with a sector entry and holding pattern. It's no place to be unless you are sure you're on top of it. It is one thing to fly two ILS approaches a week in smooth stratus from vectors to final, but a completely different thing to fly one complete NPA every two months in cumuliform clouds.

I am certainly NOT saying not to do the CIR or PIFR for private flying, because if you do it should make your private flying an order of magnitude more effective. I strongly recommend however to make sure you get plenty of 'actuals' practice and be prepared to set appropriate personal standards.

IMHO, do the CIR, even only for NDB,GPS Arrival & GNSS NPA. You can then apply for a PIFR on the basis of that rating and get some extra latitude in the timing of your renewals.

I do hope this is some help.

[defiant]

I believe that if you complete the MECIR, that you can also have your PIFR signed off in your log book as well at the same time (just make sure your testing officer signs off all the aids that you can fly with for the PIFR as well).

This may help once your MECIR lapses. You will still have access to IFR flight under the private IFR rules. Plus the added experience of obtaining the MECIR can't be a bad thing!

Defiant.